The story of techlash, and how the future might be different

We’re living in interesting times.

For the past 20 years, we’ve seen one major cluster of transformative technologies: the internet, social media and smartphones.

But in the past, say, 2 years, we’ve seen a multitude of transformative technologies start to hit the mainstream. From artificial intelligence (AI) to virtual, mixed and augmented reality (VR/AR/MR) to driverless cars to bitcoin and blockchain.

For many of us, it may feel like a certain vision of the future is inevitable—a vision where the future is almost unrecognisable to humans of today.

In the future we’ll live somewhere in between the virtual and the real, with our everyday lives continually mediated

In some versions of this future, everything is fine. Initiatives like basic income would ensure that everyone would have the means to live in a workless future. For others, including Tesla and Space X founder Elon Musk, an AI future is scary indeed.

But some unexpected things have been happening that may disrupt this future. Things that are increasing mainstream concern about the trajectory in which humanity is heading. Things that may actually signal a shift in what appears to be our current trajectory.

Techlash

This shift in thinking about technology is widely being described as techlash. It describes the increasing unease about the impact that companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon are having on everyday life.

Even technologists are getting on board the techlash, as the mood at this year’s SXSW in Austin Texas suggested. As one of the top global technology conferences, SXSW is usually very ra ra for new technologies. But this year, commentators noted that the mood was decidedly sceptical about the current technology climate.

In fact, this techlash is so significant that it’s worrying Wall Street.

How did we get to this moment? And what does it mean for the future?

Let’s have a look at some key moments that have contributed to our current state of affairs.

In August 2017, Google employee James Damore penned an anti-diversity manifesto. In it, he argued that the cause of gender inequality in the tech industry is due to biology. Women, he argued, are naturally passive and neurotic and are not interested in technical roles.

“I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” James Damore wrote.

But what was perhaps most concerning was that the memo went viral within Google, with many Googlers seeming to agree with its contents. The memo inadvertently revealed a toxic anti-diversity culture within Google.

While Silicon Valley has had a diversity problem for years now, it appears that we are no longer willing to accept it. The reaction to these incidents signals a key shift and created the foundation for the growing techlash.

Autonomous fatality

Building on this foundation was a cluster of incidents early this year.

On 18 March 2018, a tragic milestone was reached in the history of driverless vehicles. On that day, a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, was struck and killed by a driverless car owned by Uber. As it approached the pedestrian, the car showed no signs of slowing down. It’s widely being called the industry’s first ever fatality.

The end of Facebook?

But what perhaps tipped techlash into the mainstream was what happened the day before.

On 17 March 2018, the news broke that Cambridge Analytica had attempted to influence the political process in the US and the UK using data obtained from 50 million Facebook accounts. Despite the firm’s claims to the contrary, Facebook had known about the risks posed to its users for at least 2 years but failed to act.

The Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal comes on the heels of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announcing its launch of a potentially precedent-setting investigation into the possible misuse of user data by Facebook and Google.

And with that, techlash is now most definitely a thing.

So, what comes next? What could a new, post-techlash vision of the future look like?

Post-techlash

One possible future is one not unlike the dreams of the early internet pioneers. One where power becomes decentralised and shifts to increasingly self-sufficient individuals and communities. Where we focus on humans before technology. A future powered by movements like intentional communities and co-living and enabled by technologies like blockchain. One such example can be seen in Western Australia’s White Gum Valley, where experimental housing is being built that combines intentional communities, sustainability and blockchain-distributed solar power.

This decentralisation is already happening with social networks on a grander scale. Individuals (especially young people) are leaving Facebook for smaller, more intimate spaces and groups.

Techlash is making it possible to rethink our future, to open up new possibilities. If you don’t like where the future is headed, now is the time to do something about it.

Recommended from Tech

Dr Kate Raynes-Goldie

Game designer & future humanist

Dr Kate Raynes-Goldie has been preparing humans for the future since 2003. Her super power is explaining complex ideas and new technologies in a fun and engaging way, which she does through speaking, writing and workshops. Kate is also a tech columnist with the Business News and has written for a variety of publications in Australia and Canada including Kotaku and The Conversation. She is also a 2018 40under40 winner.

This allows you to republish our articles online or in print for free. You just need to credit us and link to us, and you can’t edit our material or sell it separately.

Using the ‘republish’ button on our website is the easiest way to meet our guidelines.

Guidelines

You cannot edit the article.

When republishing, you have to credit our authors, ideally in the byline. You have to credit Particle with a link back to the original publication on Particle.

If you’re republishing online, you must use our pageview counter, link to us and include links from our story. Our page view counter is a small pixel-ping (invisible to the eye) that allows us to know when our content is republished. It’s a condition of our guidelines that you include our counter. If you use the ‘republish’ then you’ll capture our page counter.

If you’re republishing in print, please email us to let us so we know about it (we get very proud to see our work republished) and you must include the Particle logo next to the credits. Download logo here.

If you wish to republish all our stories, please contact us directly to discuss this opportunity.

Images

Most of the images used on Particle are copyright of the photographer who made them.

It is your responsibility to confirm that you’re licensed to republish images in our articles.

Video

This licence is ‘All Rights Reserved’, granting provisions for YouTube to display the content, and YouTube’s visitors to stream the content. This means that the content may be streamed from YouTube but specifically forbids downloading, adaptation, and redistribution, except where otherwise licensed. When uploading your content to YouTube it will automatically use the Standard YouTube licence. You can check this by clicking on Advanced Settings and looking at the dropdown box ‘License and rights ownership’.

When a user is uploading a video he has license options that he can choose from. The first option is “standard YouTube License” which means that you grant the broadcasting rights to YouTube. This essentially means that your video can only be accessed from YouTube for watching purpose and cannot be reproduced or distributed in any other form without your consent.